Post #4582824 · Elektrine

2026-08-31 01:55 UTC

uuuugggghhh, this is a bit late, but I haven't seen any posts about it... apparently Incus and IncusOS, both of which had a zero-tolerance policy toward LLM use, "now tolerate the use of [LLM] tools" The change to their contributor guidelines was committed on June 16, which was included in release notes for Incus 7.2 and Incus 7.0.1 LTS. https://linuxcontainers.org/incus/docs/main/contributing/introduction/#for-contributions https://github.com/lxc/incus/commit/54bae0e4d4eabfe0f1a1127b5fb0dfc986720654 Most of the new policy elaborates on the idea that code should be "submitted by human beings" (submitted) who "fully own their contribution" (lol) and are "able to reason about it [and] explain why things were done a particular way". You know, "responsible" vibecoding, a thing that totally exists... assuming you can ignore the myriad ecological/social/legal/technical/etc issues related to the production and use of LLMs, you're cool with using fashtech, and you want to pretend that all your contributors are immune to use case creep, deskilling, hype, "ai" psychosis, etc. 1/🤮 #incus #incusos #slop #slopware #vibecoding

Replies (1)

@lina@neuromatch.social 2026-08-31 01:55

We get the typical "slop can be good sometimes" for a vaguely defined set of use cases... "AI tools can sometimes be beneficial, particularly when it comes to finding patterns among a large data set (entire code base), performing tedious repetitive changes or large refactoring/re-organization." and also this gem... "AI tools are treated the same as traditional tooling like sed, awk or coccinelle." which is a reversal of how they treated LLMs in their previous "No Large Language Models (LLMs) or similar AI tools" statement: "All contributions to this project are expected to be done by human beings or through standard predictable tooling [...] LLMs and similar predictive tools have the annoying tendency of producing large amount of low quality code with subtle issues which end up taking the maintainers more time to debug than it would have taken to write the code by hand in the first place." Maybe they conflated "predictable tooling" with "predictive tools" (already a slightly sinister framing). And I guess subtle code issues are no longer a concern, since they're only suggesting that LLMs are useful for "boring grunt work" like (checks notes) "large refactoring" 🤦‍♀️ well, I'm sure the subtle issues will never slip past review. 2/🤡

Open ##4582823